• No results found

What are the drivers of Brand Loyalty for athletes and how are they different for different types of athletes

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "What are the drivers of Brand Loyalty for athletes and how are they different for different types of athletes"

Copied!
103
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

What are the drivers of Brand Loyalty for

athletes and how are they different for

different type of athletes

Master Thesis

Name: Wybren Altenburg

Student number: 11152141

Institute: Master Thesis University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Business Administration – Marketing track

First Supervisor: drs. Jorge Labadie MBM Date: 18-8-2017

(2)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Wybren Altenburg who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Drs. J. Labadie for the time, effort, support and supervision throughout the whole thesis process. Also, I would like to show gratitude to all other people who helped me to complete this thesis.

(4)

Abstract

It is argued that athletes have a high degree of loyalty towards brands, however no such study has investigated which factors contribute to this high degree. This study aims at discovering the underlying reasons for brand loyalty amongst athletes by looking at their motivations for buying sports shoes. Moreover, this study stretches the concept of brand loyalty in a sports context further by examining brand loyalty in the context of Type of Sport (team- or individual sport) and in the context of Type of Motivator (performance-or leisure driven)

An online-survey was spread among 369 Dutch athletes, who provided the data for statistical measurement. This study found that Risk Aversion, Variety Seeking, Brand Image and Social Pressures influence athletes in their degree of brand loyalty. On a brand loyalty level,

differences between type of athletes occur only regarding Perceived Value. In all other cases, athletes act, react and behave similar as each other, making, in a sense, the sports industry homogeneous.

Additional analyses have been put in place to examine if the sports industry could indeed be seen as homogenous. These analyses show that on a Brand Attitude level and for athletes in specific sports (Running, Soccer and all other sports), athletes differ from each other

regarding Risk Aversion, Variety Seeking and Brand Image. Therefore, this study shows that there is room left for interpretation that the sports industry is not homogenous but instead more fragmented.

This study provides an guide for sport brands to conclude on which factors they need to focus when targeting different kind of athletes.

(5)

Table of contents

Abstract ... 4 1. Introduction ... 7 1.1 Theoretical Contribution... 10 1.2 Managerial Contribution... 11 1.3 Research outline... 12

2. The concept of brand loyalty... 13

2.1 One dimensional loyalty ... 14

2.2 Two dimensional loyalty ... 14

2.3 Multi-dimensional loyalty ... 15

2.4 The four types of loyalty... 16

3. Determinants of brand loyalty ... 18

3.1 Consumer factors ... 18

3.2 Brand factors... 21

3.3 Social factors ... 23

4. Brand Loyalty in the sport industry ... 25

4.1 Individual athletes VS Team athletes ... 26

4.2 Performance VS Leisure: Motivators to sport ... 27

5. Conceptual frame work and hypotheses ... 28

5.1 Impact of consumer factors on brand loyalty ... 28

5.2 Impact of brand factors on brand loyalty... 30

5.3 Impact of social factors on brand loyalty ... 33

5.4 Conceptual model ... 35 6. Methodology ... 36 6.1 Research design ... 36 6.2 Sample ... 37 6.3 Pilot study ... 37 6.4 Measures ... 38 6.4.1 Independent variables ... 38 6.4.2 Dependent variables ... 40 6.5 Data analysis ... 41

7. Results, Analyses and Hypotheses on Brand Loyalty ... 43

7.1 Sample characteristics ... 43

7.2 Data preparation process... 44

(6)

7.4 Scale means and correlations ... 44

7.5 Multiple hierarchical regression analysis ... 46

7.5 Moderating effects ... 49

7.6 Hypothesis tests ... 49

8. Results and analyses on Brand Attitude ... 59

8.1 Moderating effect of type of sport ... 59

8.2 Moderating effect of type of motivator ... 60

9. Additional analyses ... 63

10. Discussion ... 67

10.1 Analyses on Brand Loyalty ... 67

10.2 Analyses on Brand Attitude ... 72

10.3 Differences between Brand Loyalty and Brand Attitude ... 73

10.4 Additional analyses... 75

11. Conclusion ... 76

11.1 Main Conclusion... 76

11.2 Theoretical contributions ... 77

11.3 Managerial contributions ... 79

11.4 Limitations and future research ... 81

References ... 83

Appendix A: Measure ment scales ... 94

Appendix B: Full final s urvey ... 95

Appendix C: Anova Post Hoc Test... 102

(7)

1. Introduction

People in the Netherlands love to play and watch sports(Tiessen-Raaphorst & Breedveld, 2007). Participation levels rose from 52% to 75% in the last ten years (Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2015), with soccer, tennis and hockey being the most popular (NOC*NSF, 2016). Due to the increased sport participation levels, the entire industry has shown significant growth in the last years (Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2015). On average, the Dutch spend 7.5 billion euro on sport related products, making it almost a thousand euro per household every year (CBS, 2013). The sports industry comprises a wide variety of brands. Nike, Adidas and Puma are the largest and most influent ia l brands, with a combined market share of 45% (Forbes, 2016a). Additionally, Under Armour is a relatively new brand, but has shown incredible growth rates throughout the last years (Forbes, 2016b).

Acquiring and retaining loyal-customers is argued to be difficult in such a competit ive market (Dowling & Uncles, 1997). However, from my personal experience I found that athletes are highly loyal towards brands. Although there are various brands of similar quality availab le in the market, athletes seem to purchase only one specific brand without switching brands over time. My personal findings do not stand alone. Gibbon (2012) and Neale (2010) also found a higher degree of brand loyalty in athletes then in other consumers.

The sport industry - as a whole - manufactures a wide variety of sportswear for an incredibly large amount of sports. In regard to brand loyalty, sports shoes stand out among all these types of sportswear (Kita, 2009). (Habets, 2004) found that athletes are incredib ly attached to their sports shoes. This means that sports shoes make an excellent foundation for researching brand loyalty in sports. Another reason is the fact that sport shoes are exclusive to their corresponding sport and therefore indispensable for performance (APMA, 2016). Soccer players use soccer shoes, tennis players use tennis shoes and so on. Other sportswear might and

(8)

could be worn across multiple sports, making it relatively low involvement products (Rhee, 2014). Since performance is a core element of sports (Colijn & Kok, 2009), this could be one of many underling factors causing repeated purchase behaviour (Rhee, 2014). The repeated purchase of one specific brand without switching between brands over time seems to be unique for the sports industry (Neale, 2010). This raises the question if the sport industry is indeed significantly different from other industries regarding brand loyalty.

(Dawes, 2012) argues that the sports industry does not represent a unique market in which unusual patterns of loyalty are followed. However, most scholars identify the sports industry as a high-involvement market which contains unique characteristics in terms of brand loyalty. (Colijn & Kok, 2009; Kinuthia, Keren, Burugu, Muthomi, & Mwihaki, 2012). So, it seems that brand loyalty is a complex multi-dimensional concept that could work somewhat differently in the sports industry.

Performance and leisure are both motivators to practice sports (Kremer, Trew, & Ogle, 1997). Athletes tend to lean more towards either performance or leisure (Colijn & Kok, 2009). This directly translates towards the purchase-decision for sports shoes in which both motivators could play a decisive role (Colijn & Kok, 2009). Therefore it can be assumed that social, aesthetic and comfort are more important to leisure-athletes, whereas performance is critical for performance-athletes.

Sports can approximately be divided into two different types (Tiessen-Raaphors t, 2015).+ Firstly, sports played with a team (e.g. soccer and hockey) and on the other side, individual sports (e.g. tennis and golf). It can be argued that there are differences in attitude and behaviour between athletes, depending on the type of sport (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005; Cox, 1998). Most interesting is the fact that these differences can be enhanced by social influences of peers and team members (Ahearne et al., 2005). Considering these behavioura l and attitudinal differences and the possible influence of social factors, it is likely that the

(9)

concept of brand loyalty works significantly different for athletes in teamsports, compared to athletes in individual sports.

Brand loyalty, defined as “repeated and continuous buying of a product or service” (Oliver, 1998p. 35), has traditionally been treated as either a behavioural (Kahn, Kalwani, & Morrison, 1986) or a attitudinal concept (Dick & Basu, 1994). However, further research found that social factors also need to be taken into account when examining the factors of brand loyalty (Lyong Ha, 1998a). Acquiring and maintaining loyal customers is argued to be critical for companies in order to compete in a competitive market (Kotler & Keller, 2009). Loyal customers can reduce companies’ marketing costs (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 1998), create positive word-of-mouth (Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993) and are willing to pay higher prices (Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998).

However, some scholars question this construct and the importance of brand loyalt y. Hu, et al (2010) found that in competitive repeated-purchase markets, loyalty is shaped by the passive acceptance of brands rather than by the strongly held attitudes about them. (Sharp, 2010) adds to these findings by arguing that there is no such thing as brand loyalty. He believes that customers constantly buy one particular brand by its mental and physical availabilit y. Brands that are easier to buy – for more people, in more situations, have more market share (Sharp, 2010). According to this theory, Nike, Adidas and Puma, should have the highest market share due to their high-availability and not by customer loyalty.

All in all, there is a lack of understanding in which factors cause athletes to constantly buy one particular brand. There are reasons to believe that brand loyalty is a complex multi-dimensio na l concept that works differently for the sports industry (Colijn & Kok, 2009; Kinuthia et al., 2012). Moreover, there are reasons to believe that sports shoes are a product category in which brand loyalty factors could play a decisive role (Habets, 2004). Therefore, this study aims at explaining the behavioural, attitudinal and social factors that might cause brand loyalty in both

(10)

team- and individual athletes & performance- and leisure athletes. Taking all factors into account, the research question will be:

“What are the factors that influence brand loyalty for buying sports shoes amongst athletes

and what is the influence of type of sport and type of motivator?

1.1 Theoretical Contribution

This study is relevant for both consumer behaviour and brand loyalty research. And in doing so, it will contribute to the existing literature. Since the sports industry is argued to be unique in terms of brand loyalty (Colijn & Kok, 2009), this study will provide insights into which factors contribute to the level of brand loyalty athletes possess. Until now, no such study has been done for the sports industry in the Netherlands.

Furthermore, this study will contribute to the brand loyalty literature in that it incorporates social influences in the concept of brand loyalty. As Ha (1998) already

mentioned, consumers do not take isolated decisions but they are susceptible to opinions and thoughts of peers. This study stresses the importance of social influences for both team- and individual athletes. In addition to the deepening insights in the concept of brand loyalty, the outcomes of this study offer new insights into which factors play an role in the development of brand loyalty for athletes. Athletes are argued to have a high degree of brand loyalty(Neale, 2010), but no study has shown which factors provoke this. By making a comparison between types of sports ,the concept of brand loyalty within the sports industry will be stretched even further

(11)

1.2 Managerial Contribution

This study provides several practical implications that can help companies to attract, acquire and maintain loyal customers within the sports industry. Since the sports industry is argued to be unique in terms of brand loyalty (Colijn & Kok, 2009), this research shows which factors have influence on a consumers loyalty towards a brand in the sports industry. Additionally, it shows which factors contribute the most to the degree of brand loyalty athletes possess.

In the sportswear industry, there is evidence that the top brands compete fiercely against each other for market share and customer loyalty(Tong & Hawley, 2009). In such an environment, successful positioning and targeting becomes crucial (Tong & Hawley, 2009). Thus, the brand loyalty scale for athletes identified by this study can be used as a practical marketing tool for sport brand managers Specifically, it helps managers to conclude on which factors they need to focus when targeting athletes.

Given the fact that brand managers often have limited resources (time, money and manpower) to implement branding strategies (Koekemoer & Bird, 2004), this study provides insights as to which factors of brand loyalty would deliver the best results in today’s competitive sports industry. Furthermore, this study helps managers to deal with the forces of disloya lt y among consumers by providing an accurate and simple method to measure brand loyalty. Knowing the underlying reasons that motivates athletes to their high level of brand loyalty is useful in several situations: It helps companies to provide their customers with the best service possible and it ultimately will lead to customer satisfaction which enhances the brand loyalty even more.

At last, creating brand-loyal customers is argued to be difficult (Dowling & Uncles, 1997). Since the sports industry is a highly competitive market (Tong & Hawley, 2009),

(12)

managers need to constantly improve their programs to attract and retain loyal-customers. Therefore, managers should concentrate on gaining knowledge of the factors that can influe nce consumers to remain loyal to their own brands.

1.3 Research outline

This paper will first start with a literature review, resulting in a conceptual model and several hypotheses. After that, the research method used is explained. This part describes how the research is designed in order to form a well-founded answer to the central research question. Then, the results will be examined with several analyses. Later on, these results will be discussed in light of the theory. To round off, the last part provides managerial implicatio ns, limitations and most importantly, answer to the central research question.

(13)

2. The concept of brand loyalty

The concept of brand loyalty has attracted a lot of attention among both practitione rs and academia in the field of consumer behaviour and marketing strategy (Møller Jensen & Hansen, 2006). Brand loyalty involves a complex concept that measures the commitment or attachment of customers towards a brand and how likely they would switch to another brand (Aaker, 1991). Developing feelings of loyalty towards a brand means that customers show loyalty on two aspects. First of all, they show loyalty by repeated purchase of the same brand. Secondly, they are strongly committed to that brand. The brand loyalty literature contains a large amount of measures. Traditionally, brand loyalty was treated as either an behavioura l (Kahn et al., 1986) or a attitudinal concept(Dick & Basu, 1994). However, further research found out that also social influences needs to be taken into account when testing the determinants of loyalty (Lyong Ha, 1998b)In that sense, brand loyalty is not a simple dimensional concept, but a complex multi-dimensional concept.

The literature addressing loyalty issues is very wide. Numerous descriptions have been provided in the last years, such as (Sheth & Parvatlyar, 1995) who provide an operational definition by stating that “Brand loyalty is a function of a brand’s relative frequency of purchase in both time-independent and time dependent situations”. At a later stage, (O'Shaughness y, 1992) included attitudinal factors in his definition by stating that brand loyalty is: “The means of handling the risk associated with the decision to purchase a specific brand”. Building upon previous work, (Rust, Lemon, & Zeithaml, 2004) describe loyalty as: “Customers’ tendency to stick with the product, above and beyond objective and subjective assessments of the product”.

As one can see, brand loyalty is examined in a wide variety of research. The upcoming section will provide a thoroughly analysis of the construct of brand loyalty and provides an profound understanding of the different dimension of the brand loyalty concept.

(14)

2.1 One dimensional loyalty

Until the 1970’s brand loyalty was seen as a simple construct based on total purchases of a brand. This construct of loyalty was referred as behavioural loyalty. Many scholars have defined loyalty only from this behavioural perspective, because they believed that repeated purchase behaviour represented true loyalty towards a brand or product (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007; Fader & Hardie, 1996; Montgomery, Massy, & Morrison, 1970). Behavioura l loyalty depends on the costumer’s actual purchase of a certain product or brand and then continuing to purchase it, regardless of any attitudes. In that sense, loyalty towards brands arises from preference towards a brand or product (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007). From a behavioural point of view, companies can increase behavioural loyalty in different ways. One way is by focussing on improving customer satisfaction and product quality. Surely, good quality leads to satisfaction and satisfied customers will increase repeated purchase behaviour. (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007; Chumpitaz Caceres & Paparoidamis, 2007). Due to the overwhelming literature suggesting that the concept of loyalty is more than just repeated purchase behaviour, the concept of two dimensional loyalty is discussed in the next section.

2.2 Two dimensional loyalty

The concept of two-dimension loyalty was introduced in 1969 by George Day. He showed that loyalty should not be measured only by repeated purchase behaviour. Instead, loyalty is believed to be a combination of repeated purchase behaviour and emotiona l attachment to a brand. This finding introduced the second dimension of loyalty, described as attitudinal loyalty. From an attitudinal perspective, customers are loyal to a brand or product when they have a positive and preferential attitude toward it (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007). This means that customers who are willing to pay more and have favourable attitudes for brand A over brand B, are more loyal to brand A. Attitudinal loyalty is argued to be the highest when

(15)

customers are able to differentiate the brand from potential alternatives and has strong preference for it (Griffin & Herres, 2002). Therefore, compared to the behavioural aspect of brand loyalty, this form of loyalty emphasises the importance of attitudes and preferences for a specific brand. These preferences and the strength of the attitudes determine the ultimate strength of attitudinal loyalty. From an attitudinal perspective, companies need to focus on improving factors like the brand commitment, brand experience and brand trust when aiming at increasing brand loyalty. Focussing on these elements gives companies the strength and ability to stay a step ahead of the competition (Bandyopadhyay & Martell, 2007; Uncles, Dowling, & Hammond, 2003).

2.3 Multi-dimensional loyalty

The two-dimensional model has been useful for conceptualizing and measuring loyalty. However, academia still argued for room for improvement since there are many variations, which leads to debate within marketing literature. For instance, (Russell-Bennett, Worthington, & Hartel, 2009) believe that all consumer behaviour is a product of cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses. Therefore, they suggest that loyalty towards a brand is a combination of a customer’s thoughts and feelings that eventually expresses as an action. Cognitive loyalty, defined as “Loyalty based on practical information that consumers have about a brand” (Oliver, 1998), relates to psychological preferences based on positive beliefs and thoughts (Russell-Bennett et al., 2009). Moreover, there may be some situations where behaviour is simply not under the attitudinal control of individuals. Rather, the expectation and influences of (relevant) others may be a major factor in behavioural performances. Ha (1998) state that social factors need to be taken into account when examining brand loyalty. He believes that consumers do not take isolated decisions, but decision are susceptible to

(16)

opinions and thoughts of peers (Ha, 1998). In that sense, taking the cognitive loyalty and social factors into account, brand loyalty can be seen as a multi-dimensional concept.

2.4 The four types of loyalty

Dick and Basu (1994) distinguish four different types of customer loyalty, resulting from the comparison between low and high repeated purchase behaviour and low and high favourable attitudes compared to potential alternatives (Figure 1) The two dimension on which the classification of loyalty was based can be translated to the already explained behavioura l loyalty (low or high repeated purchase behaviour) and attitudinal loyalty (low or high attitude).

The first of the four loyalty types is called transactional or no loyalty. This is when both repeated purchase behaviour and attitude is weak. The second type, spurious loyalty, occurs when consumers have a low attitude, but a high purchase intention. These customers buy regularly the same kind of products, whether or not from the same brand, but without showing a specific preferred attitude towards one of them. Contrary, a low repeated purchase behaviour combined with a high favourable attitude generates latent loyalty. Customers with latent loyalty have a strong favourable attitude towards the brand but a weak repeated purchase behaviour. This weak behaviour is determined by either situational effects, which are usually outside the ‘control-range’ of the firm, or by the firms accessibility, price and distribution system. The highest and most preferred type of loyalty is acquired when both favourable attitude and repeated purchase behaviour is strong. Consumers with this type of loyalty, referred as true loyalty, support one particular brand and are less vulnerable to alternatives through their strong favourable attitudes. Obviously, acquiring true loyal customers is the most preferred one, but simultaneously is it the most difficult one to achieve. In order to achieve true loyalty, companies need to focus on both the behavioural and attitudinal aspect of loyalty (Dick & Basu, 1994).

Altogether, brand loyalty has been the core of strategic marketing and provides a foundation for creating and developing a sustainable competitive advantage (Dick & Basu,

(17)

1994) Additionally, the distinction between different types of loyalty need to be understood in order to communicate the right message, at the right time to the right target group (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004). In the upcoming sections the determinants of brand loyalty are discussed, as they represent key elements in this research.

Transactional Loyalty

 Weak repeat purchase

behaviour

 Weak favourable attitude

Latent Loyalty

 Strong favourable attitude  Weak re-purchase

behaviour

Spurious Loyalty

 Low favourable attitude  High re-purchase

behaviour

True loyalty

 High favourable attitude toward the brand

 Intensive re-purchase behaviour

Behavioural loyalty Behavioural loyalty

A tt it u d in a l loya lt y Low High L ow H igh

Figure 1: Four types of loyalty.

(18)

3. Determinants of brand loyalty

As briefly explained before, brand loyalty is an complex multi-dimensional concept. Various research has been done, resulting in a wide variety of factors that contribute to the level of brand loyalty a consumer possesses (Kuusik, 2007). To increase brand loyalty perceptions, it is important to recognize and evaluate the factors that influence customer behaviour(O li ver, 1998) In the next part, the main contributors are presented more thoroughly. Following the example of Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004), the factors are classified in three basic categories: consumer factors, brand factors and social factors.

3.1 Consumer factors

The importance of individual’s characteristics in purchase decisions has been emphasised in both normative and empirical studies (Kuusik, 2007). In these studies, characteristics like risk aversion, brand trust and the degree of customer satisfaction is examined. Next, all characteristics are analysed thoroughly.

 Customer satisfaction

The first of the factors affecting brand loyalty is customer satisfaction. Satisfact io n involves the degree of how well the product fits the needs of the consumer and the degree of happiness of the consumer after the purchase(Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994). Several scholars have studied the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. Results from these studies showed that there is a direct connection between satisfaction and loyalty, with an increase in satisfaction resulting in an increase in customer loyalty (Heskett & Schlesinger, 1994). Moreover, consumers are more likely to turn to competitors when customers satisfact io n is low (Kuusik, 2007). Therefore, it is vital for companies to create and maintain satisfied customers. Low satisfied customers will eventually be lost.

(19)

 Risk aversion

Consumers are frequently confronted with situations that vary in the degree of uncertainty and mostly involve a possibility of gaining or losing relative to the others. When confronted with such situations, most people are prominently risk averse (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). Prospect theory explains such risk aversion by stating that people are more sensitive to the possibility of losing than to the possibility of gaining (Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). Normally, purchase decisions linked to high-involvement product categories includes greater risk for the buyer (Gordon, McKeage, & Fox, 1998). This feeling of taking risk is argued to lead to higher or lower levels of brand loyalty (Luce, 1998).

 Variety seeking

When consumers try to avoid risk, they are tend to buy constantly the same brand and don’t seek for variety (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004). So, it seems better to attract and maintain risk-averted customers. However, consumers who are loyal and constantly buying the same brand can come in a state called “routinisation” (Menon & Kahn, 1995). Although at first helpful, it can also lead to feelings of monotony and boredom, which can lead to seeking for new brands. Thus, the level of variety seeking reflects the degree of loyalty, with a high level of variety seeking reflecting a low level of loyalty and vice versa.

 Customer commitment

Customer commitment is a central construct in the development and preservation of marketing relationships, because it is a known as a key psychological driver that connects the costumer to the company (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor, 2004). Commitment has its nature in the attitudinal construct since it represents customers feelings about developing and maintaining a relationship with a company (Fullerton, 2003). Commitment towards a brand is likely to explain the method by which a customer is loyal, because he or she has both a high favourable attitude

(20)

and purchase behaviour. This method is an aspect of brand communities where customers share identification with a common brand they consume (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). The bond that commitment creates is relatively strong. Even in times where satisfaction with the brand is low, brand loyalty will be maintained. (Gustafsson, Johnson, & Roos, 2005). Furthermore, committed customers will re-purchase the brand irrelevant of price, quality or the availability of other options within the market (Kuusik, 2007). This ultimately means that companies who have committed customers do not need to put money into advertisements, since loyal customers will constantly buy their products.

 Brand trust

Consumers are more likely to trust a brand when others also trust the same brand (Lau & Lee, 1999). (Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002) state that brand trust is the level of dependability that a consumer has on a given brand to deliver on its promises. Brand trust is the central construct for any long-term relationship. So, in the consumer-brand domain it is an important factor in the emotional commitment that leads to long-term loyalty (Punniyamoo rt hy & Raj, 2007). Trust in the brand is argued to be essential for companies to create and mainta in customer loyalty. For instance, (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001) argue that brand trust can lead to both behavioural and attitudinal loyalty. This results in a high(er) repeat purchase and commitment to buy the brand at a higher price. Trust must be built over a period of time, supplying the consumer with confidence in the brand to create a relationship. As the relations hip becomes stronger, consumer loyalty also improves (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). So it seems reasonable to expect that the higher the feeling of trust in a brand, the more the consumers are loyal to it.

(21)

3.2 Brand factors

Several brand factors can play a role in the brand loyalty concept. Knowing these brand factors contributes in determining the value individuals derive from a brand (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004) Four such factors are examined: brand image, brand reputation, availability of substitute brands and perceived value.

 Perceived brand image

One factor that advances the level of brand loyalty within customers is brand image. Brand image relates to the development of a brand identity or an image that represents a brand, company or organisation. Prestigious brands can attract consumers to purchase their brand through their reputation and product quality that eventually lead towards brand loyalty (Woodruff, 1997). More specifically, prestigious brands with an iconic brand image can reduce consumer behavioural changes related to rising prices (Woodruff, 1997). In other words, the establishment of a strong brand image is important for a company in influencing re-purchasing behaviour(Woodruff, 1997). Another way brand image can influence brand loyalty is when consumers have the need to express their identity through their brand. In her research on brand personality, (Aaker, 1997) found that consumers tend to use brands that represents their own traits and feelings. Furthermore, brand image is used by consumers to classify themselves into social categories. This causes consumers to evaluate and compare the social values of all brands in their consideration set (Kuusik, 2007).

 Brand reputation

Even though brand reputation is not something that can be assigned to the product itself, the brand reputation is seen as an attribute related to the product (Zeithaml, 1988). A strong reputation enhances the loyalty, given the fact that the brand’s reputation strengthens its perceived equity (Zeithaml, 1988).

(22)

 Availability of substitute products

Also the availability of substitute products could influence the level of brand loyalt y. Consumers tend to make their purchases from a predetermined set of products, thus the availability of substitute products is expected to influence brand loyalty greatly. Byron Sharp (2010) elaborates on this, because he believes that growth in market share comes from gaining many more buyers, instead off attracting and retaining loyal customers. In order to gain more buyers, brands should: (1) be easy to buy, (2) create distinctive brand assets, (3) be consistent and (4) get noticed.

Sharp (2010) summaries these factors into the need for mental and physical availability. He believes that consumers constantly buy one particular brand by its mental and physical availability. Mental availability refers to the probability that a buyer will notice, remember and think of a brand in consumption situations (Sharp, 2010). Physical availability refers to the breadth and depth of the distribution in time and space of a brand. All in all, brands that are easier to buy – for more people, in more situations, have more market share (Sharp, 2010).At last, in situations of absence of any attractive alternatives, the relationship between brand and customers tends to last only for as long as there is no alternative (Bendapudi & Berry, 1997).

 Brand experience

Brand experience relates to a consumer’s past findings with a brand, mainly in the area of usage (Bennett, 1996) .During product usage, customers gain more experience with the brand, which results in a better understanding and growing of trust. Brand experience is related, but also conceptually different from other brand constructs such as brand attitudes and brand attachment. Brand experiences represents specific sensations, feelings, cognitions and behavioural responses triggered by specific brand-related stimuli (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009).

(23)

Furthermore, brand experience also differ from motivational and emotional concepts, because brand experience does not consider a motivational state. Instead, experiences can happen anytime, even when consumers do not show interest in or have a personal connection with the brand. However, brands that have consumers who are highly involved, are not necessarily brands that evoke the strongest experiences (Brakus et al., 2009). Moreover, brand experiences are sensations, feelings, cognitions and behavioural responses evoked by brand-related stimuli (Brakus et al., 2009). This means that brand experience is not an emotiona l relationship concept (Brakus et al., 2009). After a certain period of time, brand experiences could result in emotional bonds, but these emotions are only one outcome of the stimula t io n that experiences provokes (Brakus et al., 2009).

 Perceived value

Perceived value, defined by (Zeithaml, 1988 p.14) as “Consumers overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given” is a strategic imperative for producers and retailers in the 90’s (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). It has been argued that several components of perceived value can have an influence on brand loyalty. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) identified four different components: (1) emotional value, (2) social value, (3) functional value (price/value for money) and (4) functio na l value(performance/quality). Each component stands on its own and might be differentia l ly weighted, depending on consumer characteristics and preferences.

3.3 Social factors

Last of all, but equally important, are the social factors that can influence consumers’ behaviour. Research in social science tell us that consumers do not take isolated decisions, instead they are heavenly exposed to social control over their attitudes and behaviour (Sheth & Parvatlyar, 1995). Several social factors can play an role in the degree of brand loyalty. Two such factors are examined: social group and peer influences and becoming a fan.

(24)

 Social group and peer influences

Individual choices and behaviour can be influenced by both social groups and peers. At first, the social group itself can become a reference. This occurs when an individual identifies with the group so much that he or she takes on the behaviour, attitudes and values of its members (Dibb, Simkin, & Yuen, 1994). Consumers then do not take isolated decisions, but they are heavenly influenced by the group.

Social pressures are not only coming from groups, but can also come from peers (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 1989). They argue that individual behaviour is influenced by other individuals, suggesting that social factors are an important determinant of consumers behaviour. In addition, peers are found to be one of the most influential sources of informa t io n used by consumers in shaping their opinion about brands and their characteristics (Lau & Lee, 1999). Consumers may purchase products to conform with peers, due to concerns of what others think of them, in reaction to others’ product choice and usage (Bearden & Rose, 1990), or in situations where others have provided credible information regarding a brand/product’s value (Cohen & Golden, 1972). Many scholars have built upon these findings by including social norms (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977) and interpersonal considerations (Miniard & Cohen, 1983) in research on consumer decision-making. Additionally, (Reingen, Foster, Brown, & Seidman, 1984), highlighted the importance of peer support in the light of marketing communication.

(25)

4. Brand Loyalty in the sport industry

Brand loyalty within the sport industry is examined by various researchers. However, no consensus is reached about the construct and importance of brand loyalty within the sports industry. Dawes (2012) argues that the sports industry does not represent a unique market in which unusual patterns of loyalty take place. In his research on brand loyalty within the UK sports market, he found that sportswear brands enjoy polygamous loyalty from their buyers and consumers switch between sport brands approximately in-line with their market share. Additionally, he noticed that also sport brands exhibit the double jeopardy pattern whereby smaller brands have lower loyalty then big brands.

However, most scholars do identify the sports industry as a high- involvement market which contains unique characteristics in terms of brand loyalty. For instance, the importance of success and the competitive nature of sports is unique for the sports industry (Colijn & Kok, 2009). The urge for success combined with the competitive nature stresses the importance of product quality, since high quality materials enhance the possibility of greater performance (Sportmarcom, 2014). In addition, due to its competitive nature , the costs of switching between brands is higher within the sports industry (Kinuthia et al., 2012). At last, due to the performance aspect of sports, athletes, in comparison with other consumers, are more tended to choose brands that they rely on (INretail, 2016).

Neale (2010) builds upon these statements by arguing that athletes tend to have a higher degree of loyalty then other consumers. He explains this by the fact that sports is part of the entertainment industry, just like music film and theatre. Entertainment products are characterised as consumer-centric, high- involvement and high-identity products, and they are in many ways alike in how they are consumed (Neale, 2010). Moreover, within the sports industry, professional athletes play an important role as they act as role model for consumers(Jones & Schumann, 2000). The rise of technological advances in broadcasting and

(26)

interactive has strengthen this role, because it appears that professional athletes are everywhere. For instance, famous athletes like Lionel Messi, Lebron James and Novak Djokovic, who are often used in commercials and marketing campaigns, are seen on television, social media and billboards all over the world.

As mentioned before, Sharp (2010) questions the construct and importance of brand loyalty. His theories about the mental and physical availability as most important determina nts for re-purchase behaviour, may also be applicable for the sports industry. For every sport, independent of the type, there seems to be only a few brands who have a high mental and physical availability, while other brands within the same sport are shrined into insignifica nce compared to these big brands For example, Nike and Adidas are the biggest brands for soccer shoes, Mizuno and Asics for volleyball shoes, Adidas and Asics for hockey shoes and so on. Based on the theory of Sharp (2010), athletes are not loyal towards brands based on some behavioural, attitudinal or social factors. Instead, athletes will constantly buy the same brand, because it is best available. Therefore, it can be argued that the availability of substitute products is particularly important within the sports context.

4.1 Individual athletes VS Team athletes

Sports can approximately be divided into two different types: individual sports and team sports (Tiessen-Raaphorst, 2015). Individual athletes are people who perform on their own in sports like tennis, golf and athletics. Athletes who compete in teams are people who train, perform and compete with a team in sports like soccer, hockey and basketball.

The distinction between both types of athletes is particularly interesting, since research in social science tells us that there are differences in terms of attitude and behaviour between athletes. (Ahearne et al., 2005; Cox, 1998). Individual athletes tend to be more sensitive and imaginative, while those competing in teams tend to be more extraverted, anxious and depended (Cox, 1998). In addition, athletes who compete in teams are more susceptible to opinions of

(27)

others than individual athletes. This makes them less willing to take risks and more vulnerab le to social pressures (Ahearne et al., 2005). Most interesting is the fact that the differe nces between both type of athletes can be enhanced by social influences of peers and team members (Ahearne et al., 2005). It is argued that these social influences play a bigger role for team-athletes then individual team-athletes (Breedveld & Kamphuis, 2006). Moreover, when acting in a group, individuals can behave differently from when acting alone (Kocher & Sutter, 2007). Which also gives reasons to believe that athletes could behave differently, depending on the type of sports they play.

4.2 Performance VS Leisure: Motivators to sport

Within the sports industry, a distinction can be made between both performance-and leisure athletes. Performance and leisure are both motivators to practice sports (Kremer et al., 1997). According to (Maron et al., 2004), performance athletes are mostly young (≤ 35 years old) people who participate in an organized team or individual sport that requires systematic training and regular competition against others. Performance athletes place a high value on athletic excellence and achievement. Contrarily, leisure athletes, are described as individuals, from middle-aged (35+) who participate in a variety of sports that can be characterised as infor ma l and recreational (Maron et al., 2004). They participate in these sports on either a regular or an inconsistent basis and the exercise levels range from modest to intense (Maron et al., 2004).

For performance-athletes, product quality and the importance of brands is extremely important, whereas leisure athletes pay more attention to comfort and image of the brand (INretail, 2016). Depending on the type of motivator to practice sports, the purchase decision for sports shoes could be different for athletes(Colijn & Kok, 2009).Therefore, it can be assumed that social, aesthetic and comfort are more important to leisure-athletes, whereas performance and product quality is critical for performance-athletes (INretail, 2016).

(28)

5. Conceptual framework and hypotheses

In this section the researched conceptual framework is introduced, together with a comprehensive description of all its items. Based upon the literature study from the previous section, hypotheses have been proposed and formulated. First, all hypotheses are briefly explained and after that, the conceptual model is shown. In this study, loyalty factors from Gounaris and Stathakopoulos (2004), are used and classified into consumer, brand and social factors.

5.1 Impact of consumer factors on brand loyalty

Individual characteristics are argued to be important in purchase decision, since it can enhance or diminish feelings of brand loyalty towards brands (Kuusik, 2007). In this study, we address two such characteristics. At first, the degree of risk aversion a consumer possess, can determine whether a consumer is loyal to a brand or willing to switch between brands (Luce, 1998). We suggest that the higher the degree of risk aversion, the more athletes are loyal towards sports shoe brands. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:

H1a: The higher the degree of Risk Aversion, the more loyal athletes are towards sports shoe

brands.

Secondly, it is argued that the degree of variety seeking reflects the degree of loyalty towards brands (Menon & Kahn, 1995). A high level of variety seeking reflects a low level of brand loyalty and vice versa. Therefore, we propose that the higher the degree of variety seeking, the lower the degree of loyalty towards sports shoe brands.

H1b: The higher the degree of Variety Seeking, the less loyal athletes are towards sports shoe

brands

Additionally, it can be argued that there is a moderating effect between risk aversion and variety seeking. The higher the degree of risk aversion, the less consumers are looking for

(29)

other products and brands (Luce, 1998). Therefore, it can be argued that the more consumers are risk averse, the less they seek for variety amongst their brands and products. So, the degree of risk aversion has an impact on the degree of variety seeking. Thus, we advance the follow ing hypothesis:

H1c: The direct negative effect of Variety Seeking on brand loyalty towards sports shoe

brands is positively moderated by risk aversion, so that when Risk Aversion is high, Brand

Loyalty is high compared to when Risk Aversion is low

Research in social science shows that there are differences in terms of attitude and behaviour, depending on the type of sport they play (Ahearne et al., 2005; Cox, 1998). In other words, individual athletes are acting and thinking differently compared to team athletes. Since it is argued that team athletes are more anxious and less willing to take risks compared to individual athletes (Cox, 1998), we propose that the effect of risk aversion on brand loyalty is stronger for team athletes compared to individual athletes. Therefore, we advance the follow ing hypothesis

H1d: Type of Sport moderates the relationship between Risk Aversion and brand loyalty

towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for team athletes than for

individual athletes

Furthermore, the literature suggest that there can also be differences between athletes depending on the type of motivator (Maron et al., 2004). For instance, performance-athle tes could emphasize other brand loyalty factors compared to leisure-athletes and vice versa. Especially in the case of risk aversion, there could be differences between these athletes. Since performance athletes place a high value on achievement (Maron et al., 2004), there are reasons to believe that one’s they choose a brand that ‘works’, they are less willing to switch between

(30)

brands. Therefore, it is expected that performance athletes are more risk averse than leisure athletes. So, we advance the following hypothesis:

H1e: Type of Motivator moderates the relationship between Risk Aversion on brand loyalty

towards sport shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for performance athletes than

for leisure athletes

Also in the case of variety seeking, there can be differences between athletes

depending on the type of motivator. Leisure athletes, who play sports on an informal basis, are believed to seek for comfort and image (INretail, 2016). Given the fact that the sports shoe industry and the image of brands is constantly evolving (Lim & Phillips, 2008), leisure athletes are believed to switch more between brands in their search for comfort and image. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1f: Type of Motivator moderates the relationship between Variety Seeking and brand

loyalty towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for leisure athletes

than for performance athletes

5.2 Impact of brand factors on brand loyalty

Gounris and Stathakopoulos (2004) argue that there are several brand factors that contribute to the value consumers derive from a brand. In this study, we focus on two main brand factors: Perceived Brand Image and Perceived Value.

Woodruff (1997) argues that brands with a positive image, referred as prestigio us brands, have the ability to attract consumers and create brand loyalty amongst these consumers. In other words, the establishment of a strong brand image is important for a company in influencing re-purchasing behaviour (Woodruff, 1997). Therefore, we suggest that the more positive the brand image is, the more loyal athletes are. So, we advance the follow ing hypothesis:

(31)

H2a: The more positive the perceived brand image is, the more athletes are loyal towards

sport shoe brands

Furthermore, perceived value of the brand is believed to have a significant influence on brand loyalty (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), so that a higher degree of perceived value results in a higher loyalty towards brands. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2b: The higher the degree of perceived value, the more athletes are loyal towards sports

shoe brands

We expect that the type of sport can influence the impact of brand factors on brand loyalty. Individual athletes depend entirely on their own with regard to performance. Great, but also bad performances are directly transferred to the individual athlete which can cause psychological pressures to perform (Otten, 2009). On the contrary, performance in team sports is a team effort. This means that, even though one athlete performs extremely well, the overall performance of the team can be significant less. In other words, performance for team athletes is a result of the performance of all team members. Moreover, team athletes have the opportunity to hide behind the performances of his team members which can reduce the importunateness of brand factors, such as product quality and functional value. This gives reasons to believe that the influence of perceived value is less for team athletes. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:

H2c: Type of Sport moderates the relationship between Perceived Value and brand loyalty

towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for individual athletes than

for team athletes

Since it is believed that brand image is used by consumer to classify themselves into social categories (Aaker, 1997) and the fact that team athletes are more vulnerable to social pressures (Ahearne et al., 2005), gives reasons to believe that brand image is more important

(32)

for team athletes compared to individual athletes. Therefore, we advance the follow ing hypothesis:

H2d: Type of Sport moderates the relationship between Perceived Brand Image and brand

loyalty towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger form team athletes

than for individual athletes

Furthermore, we believe that type of motivator can also influence the impact of both perceived value and brand image on brand loyalty. Athletes engage in physical activities for two reasons, either for performance or leisure. For leisure athletes, who participate in sport on an informal and recreational basis, it can be argued that social, aesthetic and comfort are important factors (INretail, 2016). However, for performance athletes, who participate in sport on an regular basis and place a high value on athletic excellence, product quality can play a more decisive role (Maron et al., 2004). These differences between type of motivator is believed to influence the role of perceived value in the creation and formation of brand loyalty. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H2e: Type of Motivator moderates the relationship between Perceived Value and brand

loyalty towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for performance

athletes than for leisure athletes

Moreover, due to the fact that leisure athletes emphasize social, aesthetic and comfort factors (INretail, 2016), it is arguable that other factors could play a decisive role for leisure athletes. Brand image is believed to be one of these factors, since it is used by consumers to classify themselves into social categories (Aaker, 1997). Therefore, we believe that type of motivator moderates the relationship between brand image and brand loyalty, so that this is relationship is stronger for leisure athletes. So, we advance the following hypothesis:

(33)

H2f: Type of Motivator moderates the relationship between Perceived Brand Image and

brand loyalty towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for leisure

athletes than for performance athletes

5.3 Impact of social factors on brand loyalty

Lyong Ha (1998) indicates that consumers do not take isolated decisions, but they are heavenly susceptible to opinions and thoughts of peers. In line with these findings, Russell-Bennett, et al (2009) suggest that brand loyalty is a combination of a customer’s thoughts, feelings and behavioural responses. In this sense, the concept of brand loyalty is not limited to only behavioural and attitudinal factors. Therefore, we aim to underline the following issue; since the literature provides evidence that the concept of brand loyalty should include social factors, we propose that social group and peer influences have a significant impact in the process of creating brand loyalty. This impact is believed to be positive, because the more pressure is coming from the social group and peers, the more consumers feel compelled to meet their expectations. In this light, we advance the following hypotheses:

H3a: Social Pressures have a positive direct effect on brand loyalty towards sports shoe

brands

As already mentioned, consumers do not take isolated decisions and their decisions are susceptible to opinions and thoughts of peers (Lyong Ha, 1998b). Therefore, it can be argued that consumers may stay loyal towards a brand trough pressures from others. This could also be the case in the sports context. For instance, it could be that there are only a particular set of brands who are ‘socially accepted within one sport’ and are therefore repeatedly chosen by athletes. Or opinions from team members could be perceived as influential by athletes resulting in (re)-purchasing brands that are in line with thoughts and beliefs of team members. The role

(34)

of social factors seems to be specifically influential for team athletes (Ahearne et al., 2005; Cox, 1998). Team athletes are argued to be more susceptible to opinions of others, which makes them less willing to take risks and, more importantly, more vulnerable to social pressures (Ahearne et al, 2005). Based on these findings, we suggest that the influence of social group- and peer influences is higher for team athletes. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H3b: Type of Sport moderates the relationship between Social Pressures and brand loyalty

towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for team athletes than for

individual athletes

Furthermore, it is argued that leisure-athletes play sport just for fun (Maron et al., 2004). They play sports in an inconsistent way and most of the times they play with their friends. On the contrary, performance-athletes play sport on a consistent basis and place a high value on achievement and athletic excellence (Maron et al., 2004). Given the fact that leisure-athle tes have a more ‘playful’ look at sports, it is arguable that they are more susceptible to opinions and evaluations of peers. Therefore, we propose that the influence of social groups and peers play a bigger role in the concept of brand loyalty for leisure-athletes compared to performance athletes. So, we advance the following hypothesis:

H3c: Type of Motivator moderates the relationship between Social Pressures and brand

loyalty towards sports shoe brands, so that this relationship is stronger for leisure athletes

(35)

Brand loyalty

towards sports

shoe brands

Consumer factors

Brand factors

Social factors

Variety seeking Social pressures Risk Aversion

Perceived Brand Image

Perceived Value

Brand loyalty

towards sports

shoe brands

Type of sport

Type of motivator

Type of sport

Type of motivator

Brand loyalty

towards sports

shoe brands

Type of sport

Type of motivator

5.4 Conceptual model

For presentation purposes the model is divided into three groups. However, in the upcoming

analyses, the model as a whole is used.

H1d

H2b

H1a

H2d

H2a

H3a

H3b

H1b

H1c

H2f

+

+

+

H3c

-

+

H1e

H1f

+

H2c

(36)

6. Methodology

This section focuses on explaining the research methods used. The chapter starts with explaining and justifying the research design. After that, both the pre-test and the actual data procedure are explained, including their goal, sample and results. At last, the measures used are operationalized.

6.1 Research design

Since the goal of this study is to examine the effect of the independent variables, consumer, brand and social factors, and the possible moderating effect of type of sport and type of motivator on the dependent variable brand loyalty, a quantitative research approach is followed. A survey is been put in place to examine the determinants of brand loyalty and its importance in the sports industry. The survey model is tested amongst both team- and individual athletes, with the goal to show which factors affect brand loyalty in relation to athletes purchasing sports shoes.

The survey consists of three different parts, with each an different goal. The first goal of the acquired quantitative data from the survey is to determine whether respondents are team- or individual athletes and to determine whether respondents are performance- or leisure athletes. Respondents are asked to indicate which type of sports they play; team sports, individual sports or both. Respondents who indicate to play either team- or individual sports are automatically categorized as team- or individual athletes. Respondents who indicate to play both type of sports, and therefore seen as hybrid athletes, need to indicate on a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1=very few, 7=very much) to what extent they feel themselves a team athlete and to what extent they feel themselves an individual athlete. Only when hybrid athletes score higher than 4 on team athlete, below 4 on individua l athlete (or vice versa) and these numbers differ significantly, they can be categorized as a team athlete (or vice versa). The same method is used to characterise respondents as either performance- or leisure athletes. Athletes who fail to comply with these assumptions cannot be used for data analysis. Therefore, they need to be removed from the dataset.

(37)

After that, in the second part, respondents are asked to respond to a series of questions concerning brand loyalty factors. These questions, ranging from the influence of consumer factors and brand factors to the influence of social peers and teammates on individual purchase decisions, have the goal to determine which factors influence brand loyalty for athletes. In the last part ,some demographic questions will have to be answered, such as gender, age, income level and level of sports competition. At the end, the respondents are thanked for their participation.

6.2 Sample

In order to say something about Dutch athletes and the Dutch sports industry, only Dutch athletes are part of the target group. The sampling technique used for this study was convenience sampling, a nonprobability sampling method. This method was used, since the population is large and the sampling frame is unknown (Saunders & Lewis, 2009). Based upon earlier research, the expected response rate for an relative short online survey is twenty-five percent of the total amount of distributed questionnaires (Deutskens, De Ruyter, Wetzels, & Oosterveld, 2004). Friends, mostly students and young professionals, together with colleagues and family, mostly working adults were approached to take part in this study. The participants were approached via email, by posting invitations on several Social Media platforms and by asking people face-to-face. Characteristics of the actual sample are given in chapter 7.1 Before distributing the main questionnaire, a pilot study was done to evaluate the accuracy of the survey design (Saunders & Lewis, 2009).

6.3 Pilot study

The pilot study is done to check if the respondents are able to understand the essence of the questions and to test whether the respondents are able to follow the instructions and will have no problems in answering the questions (Saunders & Lewis, 2009; van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2002). The pilot-test was conducted among 20 athletes from the Netherlands. Each

(38)

respondent completed the questionnaire and were asked to indicate ambiguities and mistakes made throughout the whole questionnaire. The pilot study was also carried out to check the number of “pure hybrid athletes” in a small sub sample. A high number of pure hybrid athletes could cause a high number of ‘losses’, since hybrid athletes need to be removed from the data.

From the pilot study, several minor issues were detected which hinder answering the questions. One respondent indicated that some questions were not good readable on a mobile device due to its layout. This was fixed by changing the layout and by putting the answer options under each other instead of in columns. Another respondent indicated that a question was double interpretable through its formulation. This issue is fixed by slightly adjusting the formulation of the question without changing the essence of the question itself. In this way the best questionnaire possible was created for the main study. The final survey was administr ated to athletes in the Netherlands from 22 June till 30 June.

6.4 Measures

In this paragraph, the main measures used to observe and measure the independent- and dependent variables are explained. Additionally, the moderating variables are explained. A total overview of all measures is given in Appendix A

6.4.1 Independent variables

The independent variables are the variables that are not influenced by any other variable, but are on their part influencing other variables or relationships between variables. In this study, five independent variables can be identified. These variables are covered by either consumer, brand or social factors.

 Consumer factors

Consumer factors include two separate variables. The first variable, Risk Aversion, is measured by using the scale of Gray & Durcikova (2005). This scale uses a seven-point Likert

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

We will use the general notion of the dependence of e on the Stokes number to rationalize the influence of viscosity on the splashing onset of dense suspension droplets.. Assuming

To understand the solvation of polymer brushes in contact with vapor mixtures, we study a Lennard-Jones gas mixture with a range of compositions in contact with a coarse-grained

As the established infrastructure of the TU Braunschweig Learning Factory [9] features ideal conditions to demonstrate this research topic (e.g. presence of small-scale production

Abstract—Engineering changes (ECs) are new product devel- opment activities addressing external or internal challenges, such as market demand, governmental regulations, and

The analyzed characteristics were: maximum diastolic blood pressure (mmHg), maternal age (years), Caucasian maternal ethnicity (native Dutch and other white women or

I will argue throughout this thesis that according to the social relations between gender and space, women are restricted in their access to public space and, as a result, occupy

When using Gray, Sandvoss and Harrington’s proposition in this investigation, it is important to remember that the case studies are analyzed in context of the different waves and